How important is to transcribe jazz solos?

[Litterick]

Reading between the lines I think what litterick actually objects to is actually a perceived connection between transcription and the canon. Which is to say why the Old Masters (prez bird etc). This is not a product of ear learning per se. Is that correct, would you say?

Reading between which lines? What did I write to give you that impression?

[pamosmusic]

If you said something about me, you should tell me what it was. Others will have read it.

Just about the article. It’s not great.

In general, people who rag on Wynton Marsalis for being reactionary and excluding so much music from the jazz canon usually don’t seem to know that the musicians they’re “defending” (Albert Ayler, Cecil Taylor, late Coltrane, Ornette Coleman, and other guys we’d lump in as free jazz) wouldn’t call their own music jazz either. Leroi Jones (Amiri Baraka) quotes those musicians as rejecting the term jazz to describe their music. They referred to it by other names—“the new thing” jumps to mind—and considered jazz to be restrictive and artificial. There’s a continuation of a similar movement out there now with musicians like Ravi Coltrane and Christian Scott (aTunde, Chief Adjuah).

Even ECM is a great example of this. They’re usually considered the first of the Third Stream, which musicians often consider themselves a part of jazz and classical traditions, but distinct from both.

People who chide Wynton for being reactionary sometimes seem not to know this, but I absolutely guarantee Wynton does.

I’m don’t really subscribe to the way Wynton talks about stuff. And he might have a narrow conception of what “jazz” is (I would argue that he does) but in his own way, he’s being more respectful of that music than his critics are.

[pamosmusic]

No, it was not what I was saying. I thought the controversy about the conservative (or reactionary) programming at the Lincoln Center was well-known. Clearly, I was wrong.

No, it is quite well known. Just not always understood the same way now as it was in 1995, when the article was written.

[Litterick]

I’m going to need a bit of an expansion on what you mean by this. Because an uncharitable reading makes it look like you are saying that we should make jazz more White and European and that will make it more progressive. Which is an … interesting … take I would say. Rather early to mid century.

I expect that probably isn’t what you are saying.

I am really offended that you should have that uncharitable thought and you should raise it here. A little bit of research, such as reading the article I had posted, would have shown you the issue was not about making jazz more white and European. But that was obviously beyond you. Suggesting racism on my part was so much easier.

[Litterick]

Just about the article. It’s not great.

In general, people who rag on Wynton Marsalis for being reactionary and excluding so much music from the jazz canon usually don’t seem to know that the musicians they’re “defending” (Albert Ayler, Cecil Taylor, late Coltrane, Ornette Coleman, and other guys we’d lump in as free jazz) wouldn’t call their own music jazz either. Leroi Jones (Amiri Baraka) quotes those musicians as rejecting the term jazz to describe their music. They referred to it by other names—“the new thing” jumps to mind—and considered jazz to be restrictive and artificial. There’s a continuation of a similar movement out there now with musicians like Ravi Coltrane and Christian Scott (aTunde, Chief Adjuah).

Even ECM is a great example of this. They’re usually considered the first of the Third Stream, which musicians often consider themselves a part of jazz and classical traditions, but distinct from both.

People who chide Wynton for being reactionary sometimes seem not to know this, but I absolutely guarantee Wynton does.

I’m don’t really subscribe to the way Wynton talks about stuff. And he might have a narrow conception of what “jazz” is (I would argue that he does) but in his own way, he’s being more respectful of that music than his critics are.

Thank you. I would rather forget the matter, given Christian's remark.

[pamosmusic]

Thank you. I would rather forget the matter, given Christian's remark.

You’re welcome to edit that earlier post for clarification. If you didn’t mean it that way, it’s worth noting that text is not always clear and the internet is not always the place for forgiving interpretations.

I did read the article you posted (which I hope is clear from my response here) and still was not quite sure what you were driving at.

[Christian Miller]

I am really offended that you should have that uncharitable thought and you should raise it here. A little bit of research, such as reading the article I had posted, would have shown you the issue was not about making jazz more white and European. But that was obviously beyond you. Suggesting racism on my part was so much easier.

Ah, well.

As I said quite clearly, I don’t think you were making that point. Perhaps Peter put it better.

[Christian Miller]

Just about the article. It’s not great.

In general, people who rag on Wynton Marsalis for being reactionary and excluding so much music from the jazz canon usually don’t seem to know that the musicians they’re “defending” (Albert Ayler, Cecil Taylor, late Coltrane, Ornette Coleman, and other guys we’d lump in as free jazz) wouldn’t call their own music jazz either. Leroi Jones (Amiri Baraka) quotes those musicians as rejecting the term jazz to describe their music. They referred to it by other names—“the new thing” jumps to mind—and considered jazz to be restrictive and artificial. There’s a continuation of a similar movement out there now with musicians like Ravi Coltrane and Christian Scott (aTunde, Chief Adjuah).

Even ECM is a great example of this. They’re usually considered the first of the Third Stream, which musicians often consider themselves a part of jazz and classical traditions, but distinct from both.

historically third stream started late 50s? I’m thinking Gunther Schuller.

People who chide Wynton for being reactionary sometimes seem not to know this, but I absolutely guarantee Wynton does.

I’m don’t really subscribe to the way Wynton talks about stuff. And he might have a narrow conception of what “jazz” is (I would argue that he does) but in his own way, he’s being more respectful of that music than his critics are.

maybe but I’ve learned a tremendous amount from him nonetheless.

[pamosmusic]

maybe but I’ve learned a tremendous amount from him nonetheless.

Me too. He’s got strong opinions but he’s earned them. Brilliant musician, brilliant mind, exceptional ambassador for the music.

I don’t feel the need to agree with everything he says all the time.

[Christian Miller]

Me too. He’s got strong opinions but he’s earned them. Brilliant musician, brilliant mind, exceptional ambassador for the music.

No need to agree with everything he says all the time.

Same with Barry!

[Christian Miller]

Anyway. I posted and deleted a whole thing. Not really a discussion I’d like to have on the internet.

probably wise. Tbh I struggle with taking about this stuff in a sensitive and respectful way. In historical terms that narrative did exist, and sometimes jazz musicians would actually talk this way back in the day…

the modernist/progressive view of history which has had a complex relationship with jazz has a lot of baggage (not just cultural bias), and I’m not sure I’m well placed to unpack any of it. But it’s worth noting.

[MrTriangle]

'That bedrock conservatism -- belief in a jazz canon, skepticism about the idea of progress -- is far more than an intellectual abstraction to Crouch and Marsalis. It drives the way they program at Lincoln Center.'

Wynton Marsalis And The Jazz Rage

The resistance to change ( conservatism , reaction ) is part of the dialectic momentum of progress itself ( vide Adorno and Honkheimer's Dialectic of Enlightenment )

therefore , reactionaries are the true progressives

quod erat demonstrandum

[Christian Miller]

Sounds legit! Although I wouldn’t know.

I confess that during my MA I fast learned the art of quoting Adorno without actually having have to read any. I have a sneaking suspicion I’m not the only one.

for this and many reasons I think a phd will remain a path unfollowed…

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

Didn't Adorno hate jazz?

EDIT: https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfi...no-on-jazz.pdf

[Christian Miller]

Didn't Adorno hate jazz?

EDIT: https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfi...no-on-jazz.pdf

Yes, but unlike many writers and 'thinkers' on music I have had the misfortune to read, at least he admitted it!

[Reg]

Thanks djg..

yea played and transcribed all except the Motion thing from Rene Thomas.... although was a little... boring, maybe had to be there. Scat... wow. Still play Miss Ann's Tempo sometimes... gets muddy LOL

I work with a lot of really good drummers, rhythm sections, but this one dude.... can whistle bop heads and solos. He's a freak... last week at a gig Fried Bananas was called, right after Wes's Fried Pies... and Gerry, that's name... whistled head and Dexters solo.... was an audience killer.

Yea jazz and academia.... Yea... academia seems almost useless in itself, a Ponzi or Pyramid scheme. Theories, concepts... understandings etc... which are serious, I'm a theory nut...are almost ridiculed out in the working world.

Personally... I enjoy the working-class approach with Jazz. I'm educated and have taught... last century LOL. The privileged approached jazz.... I don't know if it works, I mean in 1960 when Brubeck cancelled a 25 date tour in the south after 22 of the schools refused to allow bassist Eugene Wright to perform...
That was a real statement...(not to mention a lot of $). Different people... different balances etc...

Again... personally, playing jazz is a lifestyle as much as it is a learned skill. Trying to learn how to play perfectly before you can play.... is.... Well yea transcribing has been/ is just a small part of that lifestyle.

[MrTriangle]

Sounds legit! Although I wouldn’t know.

I confess that during my MA I fast learned the art of quoting Adorno without actually having have to read any. I have a sneaking suspicion I’m not the only one.

for this and many reasons I think a phd will remain a path unfollowed…

You did well . DofE is a monstrously boring and futile book .
What was your masters in ?

[Christian Miller]

You did well . DofE is a monstrously boring and futile book .
What was your masters in ?

Music Education

[ccroft]

Amazing!! Such pure intonation and articulation.

Blast from the past. I miss this guy:

[MrTriangle]

Music Education

So if you do the PhD you can literally call yourself ' Dr Jazz '

How can you resist ?

[Christian Miller]

Well I’m not going inflict a phd on my loved ones, but I’m always up for a spot of jelly roll.

[MrTriangle]

I’m always up for a spot of jelly roll.

[Litterick]

You’re welcome to edit that earlier post for clarification. If you didn’t mean it that way, it’s worth noting that text is not always clear and the internet is not always the place for forgiving interpretations.

I did read the article you posted (which I hope is clear from my response here) and still was not quite sure what you were driving at.

I do not need to edit it. I do not need to defend myself against baseless insinuations. If you do not understand it, than that is your problem, not mine.

[pamosmusic]

I do not need to edit it. I do not need to defend myself against baseless insinuations. If you do not understand it, than that is your problem, not mine.

Okay then. I suppose it is.

[pamosmusic]

Here’s one:

Could we make a list of some various uses of learning by ear?

For example, a few that have been mentioned here in various combinations...

Write it down.
Memorize.
Play it on piano.
Play it on guitar.
Sing it.
Learn with variations.

Maybe some others …

Solfege? Gasp.
Learn in different keys.

Ive been working on Jim Hall’s Stella this week and starting to work fingerings out in multiple positions.

What other ways do folks like and, maybe most important, what do you feel is the benefit of each?